Future of nuclear and coal power is topic of hearing on National Energy Policy
On Thursday, June 8, the House Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing entitled National Energy Policy: The Future of Nuclear and Coal Power in the United States. The witnesses for the nuclear panel were: Bill Magwood, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy; Corbin McNeill, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO of PECO Energy Company; Dale Klein, Vice Chancellor of Special Engineering Programs for the University of Texas System; Robert Ebel, Director of Energy and National Security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Jim Graham, President and CEO of ConverDyn; and David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mr. Magwood was the first to testify. He stated that 1999 was a "banner year" for nuclear power in the United States. In 1999, nuclear energy delivered 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, second behind coal, which provided 51 percent. Also in 1999, operation of the existing nuclear power plants in the U.S. provided the greatest share of clean energy in the nation - 70 percent of America's emission-free electricity generation. To keep nuclear energy competitive, Mr. Magwood identified challenges to its expanded use which must be resolved, including the disposal of waste and issues associated with proliferation.
He also testified that the federal investments being made in the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI), the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program (NEPO) and the University Reactor Research and Engineering programs are critical to maintain nuclear as an option to meet our energy needs. Mr. Magwood argued for continued federal investments into these and other initiatives to ensure a realistic nuclear power option and a well-trained cadre of scientists and engineers.
Mr. McNeill then testified about the bright future nuclear energy has in the United States if government and industry work together to meet the challenges facing the industry. He stated the federal government needs to:
- Move toward safety-focused regulation;
- Treat nuclear power like any other electric generating technology and not make distinctions which disadvantage nuclear energy;
- Meet its statutory commitment to develop and operate a repository for the permanent disposal of waste;
- Emphasize in public education programs that the risk from nuclear power is small compared to other risks in society;
Dr. Klein then testified that Congress must substantially increase nuclear R&D funding to keep nuclear power as an option. He also stated that Congress should take action to help maintain nuclear as an option without compromising safety. These activities include regulatory improvements, the safe disposal of high-level and low-level waste; and maintaining a robust nuclear infrastructure at national labs and universities.
Mr. Ebel testified that the U.S. does not have a forward-looking plan for nuclear power and needs to develop one. The market cannot do it alone and therefore government support is required. Russia, China and Japan all plan to increase the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2020. There are no similar plans in the United States. Mr. Ebel proposes a joint industry/government program to support R&D into a fourth generation of nuclear reactors - those which are smaller in size, produce less toxic waste and use a fuel with little military application. In closing, he suggested that nuclear power needs a level playing field, with regard to regulation, to help it remain competitive.
Mr. Graham testified that the current conditions for operating the only U.S. uranium converter are terrible and the outlook is just as bad. The detrimental market conditions are contributing to the potential disappearance of uranium mining, conversion and enrichment. Changes need to be mandated by the federal government.
Finally, Dr. Lochbaum testified that the future of nuclear power is dependent on Congress reforming the regulation of the industry. He stated that NRC employees are treating the industry lightly and thus it is losing confidence in its ability to regulate.
Following the testimony presentations, committee members asked questions of the witnesses. Reps. Sawyer (D-OH) and Whitfield (R-KY) questioned Mr. Graham about the impact on the potential closure of ConverDyn and its impact on Portsmouth and Paducah. Mr. Whitfield also asked Mr. Magwood what the U.S. position is on the guarantee of a domestic source of enriched uranium. Mr. Magwood responded that there is a sound reason to support a domestic enrichment facility. However, he indicated that the federal role in these endeavors is unclear.
Rep. Wilson (R-NM) questioned Mr. Magwood about what efforts are underway to ensure nuclear is a long-range option for the United States. Mr. Magwood responded that any projections showing nuclear disappearing over the next 30 years are untrue. He stated that the federal government is working with industry to make plants more efficient. Mr. McNeill allowed that there is enthusiasm in the potential of a Generation IV reactor, which would be smaller, about 120 mw, and for which designs with MIT and South Africa are underway. When asked by Rep. Wilson why the U.S. is not making a stronger investment into nuclear R&D, Mr. Magwood stated that the Office of Nuclear Energy is trying to reverse the trend through support of NERI, NEPO and other R&D initiatives.
Mr. Burr (R-NC) asked whether the absence of a central repository for the acceptance of spent fuel would accelerate the closure of plants throughout the nation. The concurrence among the witnesses was that it likely would not, but some plants located in states with laws which limit the amount of temporary storage will find themselves flirting with that possibility.
This hearing was one in a series to review the current status of energy sources in the United States.
